Comparison of Conventional GlideScope to Single-Use GlideScope Cobalt for Orotracheal Intubation

This study has been completed.
Sponsor:
Information provided by:
Lawson Health Research Institute
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:
NCT00459797
First received: April 12, 2007
Last updated: April 20, 2009
Last verified: April 2009

April 12, 2007
April 20, 2009
April 2007
August 2008   (final data collection date for primary outcome measure)
Time to intubation (seconds) [ Time Frame: Immediate ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
Time to intubation (seconds)
Complete list of historical versions of study NCT00459797 on ClinicalTrials.gov Archive Site
  • Ease of intubation [ Time Frame: after intubation ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
  • Number of intubation attempts per group [ Time Frame: after intubation ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
  • Incidence of trauma in each group [ Time Frame: after intubation ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
  • Number of failures to intubate per group [ Time Frame: after intubation ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
  • Use of external laryngeal pressure per group [ Time Frame: after intubation ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
  • Laryngoscopic grade distribution in each group [ Time Frame: after intubation ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
  • Ease of intubation
  • Number of intubation attempts per group
  • Incidence of trauma in each group
  • Number of failures to intubate per group
  • Use of external laryngeal pressure per group
  • Laryngoscopic grade distribution in each group
Not Provided
Not Provided
 
Comparison of Conventional GlideScope to Single-Use GlideScope Cobalt for Orotracheal Intubation
Comparison of Conventional GlideScope to Single-Use GlideScope Cobalt for Orotracheal Intubation

Patients presenting for elective surgery requiring orotracheal intubation will be randomized to being intubated with either the conventional (reusable) GlideScope videolaryngoscope or the single-use GlideScope videolaryngoscope. The primary outcome is time to intubation.

Not Provided
Interventional
Not Provided
Allocation: Randomized
Endpoint Classification: Safety/Efficacy Study
Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment
Masking: Open Label
Primary Purpose: Treatment
Healthy
  • Device: Conventional (reusable) Glidescope
  • Device: Single-use Glidescope videolaryngoscope
  • Active Comparator: Conventional Glidescope
    Intervention: Device: Conventional (reusable) Glidescope
  • Experimental: Single-use Glidescope
    Intervention: Device: Single-use Glidescope videolaryngoscope
Jones PM, Turkstra TP, Armstrong KP, Armstrong PM, Harle CC. Comparison of a single-use GlideScope Cobalt videolaryngoscope with a conventional GlideScope for orotracheal intubation. Can J Anaesth. 2010 Jan;57(1):18-23. Epub 2009 Oct 31.

*   Includes publications given by the data provider as well as publications identified by ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier (NCT Number) in Medline.
 
Completed
100
August 2008
August 2008   (final data collection date for primary outcome measure)

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Any patient who is ≥ 18 yrs. coming for elective surgery.
  • Endotracheal tube is indicated for the procedure in the opinion of the attending anesthesiologist.
  • Any operator who has performed ≥ 10 GlideScope intubations.

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Any patient in whom the use of the GlideScope is contraindicated in the opinion of the attending anesthesiologist.
  • Any patient with cervical spine abnormalities.
  • Any patients with known or probable difficult airways (this rare occurrence is unlikely to be evenly distributed between the groups and could skew the data).
  • Any patient requiring rapid sequence induction.
Both
18 Years and older
Yes
Contact information is only displayed when the study is recruiting subjects
Canada
 
NCT00459797
R-07-040, 13025
No
Philip Jones, LHSC
Lawson Health Research Institute
Not Provided
Principal Investigator: Philip M Jones, MD London Health Sciences Centre
Lawson Health Research Institute
April 2009

ICMJE     Data element required by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors and the World Health Organization ICTRP